Jul 13, 201509:13PM

I have just voted NO AWARD across the board for the Hugo awards, including the category in which I am a finalist.

At one time, the Hugo WAS arguably the most significant award in SF, with the Nebula being the pro award with a different cachet.

The Nebula lost any credibility when it was awarded to If You Were An Alpha Male My Love, which was not only eyerollingly bad Mary Sue, but wasn't SF nor even an actual story. If that's what the pros consider to be worthy of note, it indicates a dysfunction at their level.

As for the Hugos, in the last twenty years or so, they've been less and less awarded for either literature or entertaining storytelling, and more and more awarded for trite fanfic. When not, it's been the same incestuous group awarding it within a circle of in-people, to the point where there are winners with literally 50 nominations and 30 wins.

This is just ridiculous.

There was some push back this year, and one could argue about the merits of doing so, or the merits of the works in question.

Instead, what has happened has been egregious ad hominem to the point of Godwin failure (Referring to us as "neo-Nazis") followed by false apologies ("I'm sorry it upset you to be called a neo-Nazi"), defense of the false apologies by alleged professionals in the use of language, with simultaneous denial that apologies were necessary or even actually took place (we agree. No apologies were actually made).

One former winner, whom I feel did in fact deserve his award, piled on to the point of equating us in exact words to domestic abusers, which is not only egregiously ridiculous, it is morally corrupt and a gross insult to actual victims and survivors of domestic abuse. Including me.

Another suggested we should create our own award, separate but equal, and then betrayed his position by failing to know anything about other SF awards. Perhaps we can have a Civil Award, that will be like a Hugo, but not like it, preserving the sanctity of the Hugo for the trufen.

The sheer, frothing, irrational vitriol aimed at us makes it clear that content will not be considered. We are Unclean, and many have stated they will not even look at our works.

Sadly, there are quite a few nominees this year who genuinely deserve awards for their work and creativity, including other members of my own category.

And perhaps someday, an award will come along that reaches the standards of credibility and accolade their works deserve.

But at present, no such award exists.

This was my choice. I am not telling my fans not to vote for me. If you feel my work is worthy, by all means vote for it. Just understand that if I win, it will be subject to the same scathing derision I give to any and all social and political issues. It deserves no less.

Jun 24, 201512:32AM

So, even though some murderous little punk wore the flags of two defunct nations on his jacket, it inevitably became about the Confederate battle banner. Which doesn't fly over the SC capital, but what do facts matter?

Several major retailers stopped selling merchandise with that image, and, under pressure, eBay and Amazon folded, too. They'll still sell Swastikas, SS death's heads, The Turner Diaries, etc, but those are okay, I guess.

So it started with me telling Amazon, CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!:

And I figured this one would have a nice cognitive dissonance, too, though someone pointed out Tennessee might actually do it:

And there's this variation, which definitely belongs on a wife beater:

To which someone responded with this:

And someone actually questioned the orientation of the Swastika, as if it isn't free to live the orientation it feels itself to be.

Jun 21, 201503:05AM

I've become aware lately of a (renewed) trend of verbal attacks against transracial couples. Commonly, a white man will be attacked for having a minority girlfriend or wife, as a "shield," or some other morally corrupt crap.

When transracial relationships were less common, this was the venue of a few clearly backward social conservatives. Now, it's not only in vogue with alleged liberals, it is extolled.

The perpetrator is almost always either single, or in a cisracial relationship, usually white, yet claims some kind of moral authority to place themselves above the transracial couple.

It should be obvious why this is wrong, but I'll explain anyway.

First, if someone is involved transracially and you're not, you hardly have any room to criticize them at all.

Also, this isn't 1950, and those relationships are normal, as they should be. See above. WTF is wrong with you?

Second, your implication is that the only reason a white person is involved transracially is for some sort of dominance game over "lesser" races. And if that's what you think, then that puts you right there with the people who claim being gay is a "choice," thus admitting they've thought about it. You're flat out admitting that's what YOU think about romantic involvements with other races. IOW: You're a huge fucking racist piece of shit.

Third, your attack impugns the mental and emotional competence of the minority partner. You're stating that they lack the ability to identify racism, or escape from it, and are some sort of helpless prisoner. Now, there's no reason to believe this is any more common among transracial couples than cisracial. You're demeaning the minority member. IOW: You're a huge fucking racist piece of shit. And, since such attacks are overwhelmingly addressed at couples with a white male and minority female, you're a huge fucking sexist piece of shit, who doesn't believe women can make rational decisions for themselves. You have the conceit to believe you know their partner better than they do. Wrong.

Fourth, in many cases, there are children from these relationships. Your implication is that these children are somehow less worthy than cisracial children. Hearken back to the medieval practice of referring to out of wedlock children as "bastards" and blaming them for their parents' actions. That's exactly what you're doing. You're heaping your racism onto innocent children, and maligning their parents in front of them.

If you see a transracial couple and find flaw with it, you need to remember these very simple facts: They're probably not racist. You almost certainly are. And you need to shut your racist fucking mouth.

Jun 19, 201511:36PM

It was like many of the thousands I've made before, and was received across the spectrum with, "Woah, good one." "Clever but too soon." "Ouch. I'm going to hell, but I'm laughing." "My god, that's dreadful," and "No, not funny.

Which is how my jokes are usually received.

Then it went semi-viral.

All of a sudden, a professional acquaintance I'm on decent terms with quotes it and asks into the ether if I'm the kind of person who (supports something bad). Said acquaintance should know better, and should have tagged me, if he wanted a debate, rather than to just have online troglodytes hurl invective.

I enjoy the discussions with said acquaintance. I find them informative, and I appreciate the differing viewpoint. I understand he was offended to the point of bypassing that.

He then basically wanted me to sign a manifesto he wrote by means of expiation. I have stated my position, vs my humor. Being forced to sign someone else's statement would be disingenuous and prove nothing. Request respectfully declined.

The thread itself was most enlightening. Comments included things like (paraphrase):

"So, you just like to make things all about you."

Well, since the thread cites me by name, it sort of is about me.

"I know from that comment that you're the worst kind of monster possible."

No, the worst kind of monsters shoot up churches and schools, or feed people into gas chambers. They don't make jokes on Facebook.

"You'r e a racist. I might tell a joke like that, but only in private."

Ah. Hypocrite.

"I do laugh at Blazing Saddles, but uncomfortably, because I know the humor is racist."

So, finding that humor funny doesn't make you racist, just "uncomfortable." Not finding my humor funny means you're not a racist, but I am, but Mel Brooks is not. Fascinating.

"You can't actually have any friends."

No? I may need to consult a therapist. I was sure I did and do. They say they're my friends, and support me.

"That comment tells me you're an ____, _____ and ___ with _____."

Fascinating. You can determine a stranger's entire personality from a single online comment? Have you consulted with scientists on this ability and had it tested? It could prove very beneficial and profitable.

"Comedians never joke about things like that."

Well, I'm not really a comedian, but a fictioneer. However, Monty Python did.

"They never joked about things like that, or the Holocaust, or..."

Excuse me, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Monty Python took the piss out of EVERYONE and EVERYTHING just because they could.

"You're not Monty Python."

So, do they have Fame Privilege or Wealth Privilege that makes this double standard?

"Get ready to lose readers."

Unlikely. I expect most of my tens or hundreds of thousands of readers will never see my jokes. In fact, most of the 5000 on Facebook won't. Nor would most of them do more than just sigh or move on to the next post.

"You can't exploit something so soon."

Why not? The politicians and news whores are.

"Everything you say just proves you're MOAR RACIST."

Well, if you go looking for it, you'll probably find it.

"You're denying racism exists. THAT's RACIST!"

A: I am not. 2) See above.

There was much more. but that's the more amusing ones.

I hope this answers all your questions. If you've taken offense, then by all means find other entertainers. I would never suggest you shouldn't. For myself, it takes more than an off-color joke for me to dismiss an entire body of work.

May 19, 201509:14AM

I think what we can learn from Waco is that Assault Motorcycles cause crime. You never see Minivan gangs killing each other. If we just ban motorcycles, we'll prevent this kind of motorcycle-related killing. And it's not as if anyone really needs a motorcycle. Remember: The motorcycle you own is the motorcycle most likely to kill you.

Apr 21, 201512:18AM

My first novel featured a female lead, bunches of mixed race characters, and a positive portrayal of a sex worker who was a bisexual Asian/Hispanic.

I then wrote a trilogy where one of the two leads was black.

I stuck a female into a special ops team in a functional role.

More mixed race, discussions of reproductive choice, and of the excesses of Fascism.

The richest, most powerful person in my main universe is a mixed Asian/African/European woman. EDIT: And one of the recrurring supporting characters is transgender.

I've written atheists, Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, people with medical and physiological handicaps, Pagans, and others I don't keep track of, because I think of people as individuals, not stereotypes.

More importantly, my readers, of every one of those demographics, have written me fanmail about the accuracy and positiveness of those character portrayals.

So, unless and until you've done the same, take your statements about "ultraconservative," "right wing," "Read less white males" and "privilege," and shove them up your ass.

Then write the story where that was a pleasurable and positive learning experience for you.

Apr 16, 201501:48AM

Cited was the indirect association with Vox Day, who may be the most hated man in SF. Also cited was the harassment they were obviously getting. They each expressed their thoughts differently on these.

On the second: Congratulations, "tolerant" "liberals," especially those of you with multiple chrome phallus statues. You've successfully protected your precious award from a gay woman and an immigrant. You just keep on talking about tolerance. We hear you.

As to the first: I very much sympathize with the writers' positions. It's not easy taking flak for someone else who deserves it, even if it's misplaced.

However, this behavior is dangerous.

It gives Vox more control over the Hugos. All he has to do to prevent someone winning is have his psychophants (sic) nominate them, and they have to withdraw in shame. And he can even endorse someone AFTER they're balloted, and there will be a pall over their win.

Also, if his endorsement was genuine (He IS a sci fi fan, after all), then you've narrowed the number of potential candidates his fans will vote for, thus increasing the odds another of his nominees will win.

Yes, he's a troll and an asshole. He trolled SFWA into removing him, even though per their own bylaws the officers have no authority to do so. He might be planning a lawsuit as we speak. NEVER think you can win against a man like this. He is narcissistic, vicious, and an expert at manipulation.

The only way to win is not to play. If his endorsement was serious, then it's still real. You can't control the personalities of people who read your work. If he was trolling, you're playing into his hands.

Participants: Ignore the man. Vote as your conscience dictates, on the quality of the work, only. To do otherwise gives him what he wants.

I would hope for more mature behavior from people with such credentials.

Thanks

Mike

Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to me
Mike,

I mentioned the circumstance, I did not name any names.

I have looked at the slate. My argument clearly states that it has nothing to do with the individuals involved or the works in question. It addresses the methodology.

I do not believe that the Hugo Awards are a proper venue for political action.

I'm sorry you got caught in the cross fire. I do however believe that you should have checked before announcing.

I made a distinction between fans and "politicized fans", nowhere did I suggest that the people involved are not fans.

Nowhere did I mention Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

steve

Mike Williamson <mzmadmike@gmail.com>
Apr 2 (12 days ago)

to Steve
If you see "politicized fans," it says more about you than about others.

And what "Checking" was I supposed to do? My point stands--bunches of people, including you and TNH, apparently started twitstorm about how I was ruining things. None of you took the time to send a polite reminder, which I would have heeded. It was 24 hours later when a friend more familiar, having been nominated before, made mention to me.

[EDIT: NOTE: I BELIEVE THE OTHER EARLY ANNOUNCER WAS A NON-SP WRITER WITH TOR. SOMEHOW, THAT WRITER GETS BOTH A PASS, AND THEIR WRONG ASSIGNED TO SP. THIS IS WHAT PASSES AS JOURNALISM IN THIS DEBATE.]

You speak in similar tones, I assume you are similar in outlook.

I don't believe anyone is trying to ruin, usurp, or otherwise damage the Hugos.

Again, that, to me, says more about you than others.

I would actually have preferred one of my other works of the year, which I feel was a story with serious merit. But then, it is a popularity award, and always has been. The Nebulae are the professional award. This is a fan award.

Steve Davidson - Amazing Stories
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to me
Mike,

and its obvious to me that you read things through heavily tinted glasses.

Who should you have asked? How about the awards committee?

I think its pointless for us to trade emails.

steve

Mike Williamson
Apr 3 (11 days ago)

to Steve
To ask them, I'd have had to know to ask them. I assumed such info would be in the email--and it was, just buried.

But, you likewise could have asked me, as a courtesy, rather than assuming my intent was to "denigrate" the awards.

There's your tinted glasses.

It is indeed pointless. You have labeled me a villain without knowing me, and are uninterested in polite discussion.

In any case, the awards committee, whose opinion matters, assures me it's not a problem.

> GRRM said, “If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award… for Best
> Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best
> Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be… whatever it is they are actually
> looking for [emphasis mine]… hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that.
> I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.”

> Joshua, on April 9, 2015 at 9:24 pm said: If gays want to have their own
> pizzas places that cater their weddings, hey, I don’t think anyone would
> have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.

Their reply was:

Subject: Re: That sounds familiar...

Oh, nonsense.

~~~

Okay, so you're one of the richest, highest paid writers in the world, but you couldn't be bothered to click on a link to find out what one side of the debate was before putting fingers to keys? Professional much?

As I've said before, and to you, the recent decade of Hugo winners show a spectrum of Writers of Palor, mostly left leaning, largely from a couple of publishing houses. Again, this is not evidence of collusion, but it is evidence of incestuousness.

We're writers and fans who want more diversity in the Hugo. Writers of color. Immigrants. Citizens of other nations. Politics across the spectrum. You can talk about it all you want, but when you use the epithet, "Many of them conservative," you attempt to condemn by association everyone in this fight who isn't.

You don't know what we want or why we're upset? Here's a headline for you: RICH WHITE MILLIONAIRE AUTHOR WITH 9 NOMS AND 6 WINS SAYS "LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

And yes, Joshua's comparison IS correct. "Sure, these people are part of our society, but they're not the part of society we want to deal with, so they should just go away. They can have something separate, but equal, but it won't really be equal."

BTW, the Prometheus Award, that you're not sure where it's awarded, is often awarded at Worldcon, often in a bar or restaurant, because "Real" SF won't acknowledge it. This year it's at Marcon. But hey, you're sure it's a worthy award. You just couldn't be bothered to look it up.

We write SF and related works, we do SF art. That makes us part of SF fandom, and part of the culture. We are not the "Wrong" type of fans, and anyone who thinks so is the wrong type of fan.

Apr 11, 201501:12AM

Several years back, when I was still a SFWA member, there was a huge panic over the "Threat" of electronic publishing.

Think about that. In an organization of writers of speculative fiction, there were a large number of people who wanted to shovel back the tide. The smart ones got into it on the ground floor and are making money. Some of them fought it for years and didn't.

The second part of the discussion was a writer complaining about "pixel-stained, technopeasant wretches" giving work away for free online, thus watering down the paying market for "real" writers.

I had a very polite discussion with Piers Anthony, who expressed the opinion that while online presence was probably marketable, he didn't see how it could compare to a "well-run ad campaign."

Of course, an ad campaign costs money for either publisher or author, and if the publisher, it cuts into their margin for other matters, including paying the writers, which is why it's generally reserved for well-known, big-selling authors.

At the time, I'd written five books in two years, but was still largely unknown. I pointed out that one of my free satirical pieces had been Farked, and gotten a half million hits in under 24 hours. There's no way I could have bought publicity like that. It was off the cuff snark that took me perhaps two hours, for which I might have eventually been paid $200. Which would you rather have, $200 now, or half a million prospective readers for the future?

Piers was absolutely correct, but he was also speaking from a zone of comfort in an established position.

I attended SFWA functions at Torcon, where I tended bar, Loscon, and then Philcon. The staff of SFWA knew who I was. They greeted me on sight by first name. When I pulled out cover sheets of my next book ("The Hero"), one of the officers said, "Oh, a collaboration. Who's John Ringo?"

At that point, John had about ten more books than I did, including three NYT bestsellers with David Weber.

But the in-crowd hadn't heard of him.

And thus it often still is. The in-crowd goes to the meetings, to the literary conventions, the writer that goes with them gets known, and then gets mentioned by friends, blogged about, and eventually, gifted with suggestions of awards.

Think about winners the last few years. Are they good? Generally. Popular? Within a small subsect always. Not always among SF fans overall. Can you think of any winners, where you'd think, "This other book that came out that year was better. Why didn't it win?"

George RR Martin laments the "marketing" that has come to the Hugos, that the Old Way is no longer respected.

That's because an NYT bestseller with 13 books out was unknown to the people who promote the award.

And this is not their fault. When Piers and George started selling, there was no internet, and bookstores, quite common, if they sold SF, had a section with most of the current releases and staff who knew what they were.

It is no longer that time. There are works that were promoted for the ballot this year that are good works, two of them from friends, and I never knew these works existed. There's just no way to track the huge disbursement of SF. We won. Nerds won the culture war. We're everywhere.

We're so everywhere we don't even know who each other is anymore.

It used to be that the World Science Fiction Convention was THE place in the industry, and everyone knew everyone through no more than two connections.

Now, though, the comic cons, GenCon and DragonCon get more writers, and more readers, than Worldcon.

The only reason the internet wasn't used as a huge pimping and platform tool until now is because so many of the younger fen had no idea what the Hugo was, or how it was decided.

Once they discovered it, these young kids, in our thirties and forties (!) realized the only way to get seen was to make use of technology.

Piers laments free content (or did. That was some years ago). George laments internet marketing. But both are here to stay, and I doubt most younger fen have any objection at all.

There are rumblings, proposals, and I fully expect that next year, there will be a dozen slates on major blogs promoting works for the Hugos.